The U.S. senators and representatives who refuse even to consider raising taxes on the rich—they squall like scalded babies (usually on Fox News) every time the subject comes up—are not, by and large, superrich themselves, although many are millionaires and all have had the equivalent of Obamacare for years. They simply idolize the rich. Don’t ask me why; I don’t get it either, since most rich people are as boring as old, dead dog shit. The Mitch McConnells and John Boehners and Eric Cantors just can’t seem to help themselves. These guys and their right-wing supporters regard deep pockets like Christy Walton and Sheldon Adelson the way little girls regard Justin Bieber … which is to say, with wide eyes, slack jaws, and the drool of adoration dripping from their chins. I’ve gotten the same reaction myself, even though I’m only “baby rich” compared with some of these guys, who float serenely over the lives of the struggling middle class like blimps made of thousand-dollar bills.

I guess some of this mad right-wing love comes from the idea that in America, anyone can become a Rich Guy if he just works hard and saves his pennies. Mitt Romney has said, in effect, “I’m rich and I don’t apologize for it.” Nobody wants you to, Mitt. What some of us want—those who aren’t blinded by a lot of bullshit persiflage thrown up to mask the idea that rich folks want to keep their damn money—is for you to acknowledge that you couldn’t have made it in America without America. That you were fortunate enough to be born in a country where upward mobility is possible (a subject upon which Barack Obama can speak with the authority of experience), but where the channels making such upward mobility possible are being increasingly clogged. That it’s not fair to ask the middle class to assume a disproportionate amount of the tax burden. Not fair? It’s un-fucking-American is what it is. I don’t want you to apologize for being rich; I want you to acknowledge that in America, we all should have to pay our fair share. That our civics classes never taught us that being American means that—sorry, kiddies—you’re on your own. That those who have received much must be obligated to pay—not to give, not to “cut a check and shut up,” in Governor Christie’s words, but to pay—in the same proportion. That’s called stepping up and not whining about it. That’s called patriotism, a word the Tea Partiers love to throw around as long as it doesn’t cost their beloved rich folks any money.

The U.S. senators and representatives who refuse even to consider raising taxes on the richthey squall like scalded babies (usually on Fox News) every time the subject comes upare not, by and large, superrich themselves, although many are millionaires and all have had the equivalent of Obamacare for years. They simply idolize the rich. Dont ask me why; I dont get it either, since most rich people are as boring as old, dead dog shit.

The situation is self-explanatory.

Senators and representatives are not super rich.

The average successful Senate campaign costs $10,000,000 which is about $1.7M/year although the job pays barely 1/10th that at $174,000 a year for a net $1.5M / year loss to play government at that level.

The arithmetic only works because of the 0.4% of Americans who make campaign contributions large enough to be reportable and those who jump through hoops to legally spend more on the process. Those people (both natural and corporate) are super rich and like the quid pro quo.

History is very clear on the benefits of a free market for every level of participant in an economy.

I agree, as long as that free market is heavily regulated at the top and functioning in the context of a strongly progressive tax regime. Otherwise it's a failed system that creates just as much poverty and misery as communism.

Remember that the end result of a totally free market is revolution and communism, not freedom.

I guess they get the loans and wait for the donations to pay off the campaign debt to come in. 10,000,000 is a lot I guess. I know I wouldn't check off a fucking dollar. Even if someone dangled some raw meat in front of me and said I'll be your new buddy. You got one friend on the earth. It's not Jesus. Its your sense.

I have offered literally dozens of opportunities to people who would have become wealthy if they had put in any effort. I have put up my own capital and knowledge to every one of these people. Not one person has bothered to follow through.

Let me guess: Amway, Herbalife, Avon, Mary Kay...?

You sum up what I am talking about nicely. No attempt to find out what the areas of business may have been, no attempt to answer any of my points with a thought out rebuttal: just mindless personal insults.
I am sure your finances reflect the intellectual quality of your reply.

You don't know what you aren't getting as a society by turning the screws on the wealth creators.

This society was rich and afforded people who worked with a high standard of living when the top tax rate was 90% and dividends, capital gains, and interest were all taxed at much higher rates.

So I think I know exactly what I'm getting when I turn the screws on the "wealth creators". Do you?

You are missing the point iwog. It is not that society ceases to function, it is that society can function better when people who are good at managing capital don't spend half their work day on avoiding taxation.
This is not a productive use of entrepreneurial capital.
Wall street has cloaked itself in the entrepreneurial flag while engaging in rape of the US economy. If people can't tell the difference things will get worse.

IT doesn't, and you are right we need to spend less and have less corruption. But instead of the borrow and spend policies of the past decade, we need to raise taxes up to where we generate enough revenue to cover our spending, with a promise that taxes can come down, when and only when we are spending less. Then watch how fast we figure out how to spend less.

But as long as we are borrowing to spend more than revenue, and everyone is competing for their piece of the excessive spending, we can never get it under control. The republican mantra of "never raise taxes" is paradoxically a recipe for never getting spending under control.

Think of an individual who thought that borrowing money and living beyond his means and running up the debt to near bankruptcy levels was a good strategy for learning how to live within his means ? "I know, I'll run up so much debt, until eventually I'll have to spend less."

I have offered literally dozens of opportunities to people who would have become wealthy if they had put in any effort. I have put up my own capital and knowledge to every one of these people. Not one person has bothered to follow through.

So you backed people and they "didn't bother to follow through." SOrry but Leo's response to this sounded kind of right. If it wasnt multi-level marketing or some kind of pyramid scheme, then, you sure were generous to back people like that.

No attempt to find out what the areas of business may have been, no attempt to answer any of my points with a thought out rebuttal: just mindless personal insults.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply of high intellectual quality.

Asking you if multi-level marketing is your business is the least insulting option based on what you posted.

When you make claims like that you should be more specific and detailed from the get go, lest you be misunderstood. The way you stated your experiences, the other options are, either your story has the same accuracy of Joe the Plumber's story -- and a similar purpose -- or you are the worlds worst manager, ever.

Before you get you panties in a bunch, I don't intend to insult, but if you have had literally "dozens" of people fail under your management/mentor-ship and not one succeed that says more about you than them. Anyone in a management/mentor-ship position should know that the success or failure of those under them is in no small part due to the training and guidance given by their mentor. Even very poor managers will have people under them succeed (then often surpass them). This is of course also assuming that you are choosing who to manage/mentor. If someone else is picking who works for you and they are only picking imbeciles, that is another problem entirely (and still your fault for not doing anything about it).

Of course if you are into mult-level marketing, then a massive failure rate is to be expected.

So let King write a check for whatever millions he wishes to donate to the US government. Nothing is stopping him from doing just that, but it's my pockets he wants to pick. F*ck him.

I hope that you at least realize that this statement demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge in most basic principles regarding a tax system of any kind. It identifies you as one who is unable to participate, in any meaningful way, or be taken the least bit seriously in a discussion on taxes.

But, no doubt it sounds pretty clever when it is repeated on FOX "news".

But, no doubt it sounds pretty clever when it is repeated on FOX "news".

Please don't pretend that both sides of the conversation aren't dictated by propoganda. The liberal side isn't any better than FOX news. Frankly, I'd take comical blatant lies, over subtle obfuscation any day--

The "liberal" side of the discussion consistently equates government with charity. From King, "What charitable 1 percenters can’t do is assume responsibility—America’s national responsibilities: the care of its sick and its poor, the education of its young, the repair of its failing infrastructure, the repayment of its staggering war debts." I don't doubt his intent. However, this is misleading by design, or by another word, it is PROPOGANDA. King is merely repeating the misleading meme-- as all partisan people do.

You never hear these guys say, "Out of every tax dollar 15% gets wasted, 30% goes to killing people around the world, 30% goes to buying votes for ourselves, and the other 25% goes to creating barriers to entry into our friends' indistries."

The republican side is VALID in telling any rich liberal who suggests we give the aristocracy more of our money and more of our power to cut the US government a check. Be a leader and show the rest of us what you feel is appropriate, rather than trying to force us to support your confused moral code.

Furthermore, follow the money. IF the US were a valid charity, as the left consistently implies, why does NO ONE give their money to the US government? You can't call the US government a charity, then never support that charity with your discretionary donations, AND call foul when the other side of the conversation suggests you should give your money to the US government first-- if you want to equate it to a charity.

I agree, as long as that free market is heavily regulated at the top and functioning in the context of a strongly progressive tax regime. Otherwise it's a failed system that creates just as much poverty and misery as communism.
Remember that the end result of a totally free market is revolution and communism, not freedom.

I think I agree with what you are saying.

We have different definitions of words here-- I would say that the free market stopped being free well before it resulted in revolution or communism, but I understand what you are saying.

Allow me to paraphrase, "Anytime a small group gains too much wealth/power, it snowballs until a revolution changes the power structure."

We must find a way to keep money out of politics, squash monopolies/oligopolies, and create strong government limits so polticians can't buy votes with public money.

The republican side is VALID in telling any rich liberal who suggests we give the aristocracy more of our money and more of our power to cut the US government a check. Be a leader and show the rest of us what you feel is appropriate, rather than trying to force us to support your confused moral code.

Again......this is just as useless as deciding not to drive on public roads because you want to see government spend less.

Taxation is a means to an end, not a political statement or a protest. Raising taxes to help balance the budget is a legitimate goal. One person voluntarily paying more taxes doesn't help accomplish that goal, it simply reduces that person's influence to effect change.

Do you really think anyone would listen to Warren Buffett if he put all his billions towards interest on the national debt? Of course not. He'd be reduced to a nobody, he would no longer be in a financial position to donate to liberal candidates or pay for charity he supports, and it would be a complete and total waste.

Anyway you still haven't addressed my position. How does a Monopoly game end if you refuse to redistribute wealth?

Do you really think anyone would listen to Warren Buffett if he put all his billions towards interest on the national debt? Of course not. He'd be reduced to a nobody, he would no longer be in a financial position to donate to liberal candidates or pay for charity he supports, and it would be a complete and total waste.

The republican side is VALID in telling any rich liberal who suggests we give the aristocracy more of our money and more of our power to cut the US government a check. Be a leader and show the rest of us what you feel is appropriate, rather than trying to force us to support your confused moral code.

*WHEW*

That was a lot of words to say the exact same thing as the Wanker. At least the Wanker is more efficient in communication.

Iwog already did a good job of clearly spelling out the issues for you, so I won't bother repeating.

The republican side is VALID in telling any rich liberal who suggests we give the aristocracy more of our money and more of our power to cut the US government a check.

You just had a more long winded explanation before you got to the same invalid point.

Individuals, whether they identify with a "team" or not, can have differing opinions on what the tax structure should look like, and that is fine. However, if person A wants higher taxes than person B using the argument that person A should "donate" more money to the government in lue of actually raising taxes for everyone is INVALIDand unconvincing and wrought with fallacy.

...demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge in most basic principles regarding a tax system of any kind. It identifies you as one who is unable to participate, in any meaningful way, or be taken the least bit seriously in a discussion on taxes.

Again......this is just as useless as deciding not to drive on public roads because you want to see government spend less.

They are used as propoganda equally, but they are not the same. One is logically consistent whereas the other isn't.

It is perfecty consistent to disgree with being forced to pay for something, and still using that which you were forced to buy. Should a starving person in a communist country turn away bread, or shelter?

Is is not consistent to pay discretionary income to charity, then suggest or infer that the US is equal to a charity, then NOT give the US government some of that discretionary income.

Anyway you still haven't addressed my position. How does a Monopoly game end if you refuse to redistribute wealth?

The Monopoly game thought experiment is grossly simplified. Silly even. If I must play along, I'd say the government represents the rules forcing a monopoly on all players, then making them roll the dice, stay in a hotel not their choosing, eliminating any industry but travel/hotels, etc...

A free market must be protected with proper regulation. The governments most important role is to create a legal and regulatory environment which fosters competition. Instead, they usually do the opposite.

How do you redistribute wealth once the power is in a few hands? Typically it takes a revolution

The Monopoly game thought experiment is grossly simplified. Silly even. If I must play along, I'd say the government represents the rules forcing a monopoly on all players, then making them roll the dice, stay in a hotel not their choosing, eliminating any industry but travel/hotels, etc...

That's not really an answer. If there are no barriers to wealth acquisition and there is no redistribution, even in death as the Ryan plan calls for, what is to prevent one person from eventually owning everything in the country?

This is a very serious question and at the core of why unrestrained capitalism is a failed economic model.

We've already been through this once a little over 100 years ago when one man owned all the railroads, one man owned all the steel, one man owned all the oil, etc. and conditions were horrific for workers. What makes you think this can't happen again?

The governments most important role is to create a legal and regulatory environment which fosters competition.

Dynamic competition is mostly a fraud. The only meaningful competition in an unrestrained free market is predatory competition. That means that two corporations compete until one is destroyed and absorbed by the winner. Eventually only one remains and can easily squash any upstarts.

Forced wealth redistribution is the only way to prevent eventual war. I can list all the historical examples if you like, but I think you know them already.

Sounds OK to me. If you are truly one of the super rich, you've been picking my pockets along with the rest of the middle class for about 35 years now.

Don't you think it's about time the gig was up?

I've been busy working all my life. You'd like to steal more of my money. But you don't have the votes in congress to tax me any further. Thank God, and the American voters for that! Your marxist/socialist Hussein was given a 'shellacking' in 2010. Just because of the out of control spending. He won't be give the chance to raise taxes on me. I pay a fortune in taxes. I, LEGALLY, avoid paying one penny more than I am forced to. Why should I be taxed more? So that more and more in this nation can continue to feed off the public troughs? I pay for my health insurance. I don't 'owe' you ANYTHING. You are responsible for your own health care. We will see how the Justices rule on ObamaCare. I pray it goes down in flames and is further cause to point out the failures of Hussein who is ill equipped to run this nation.

You are right, the 'gig' is up. Time for Hussein to be sent packing. This will be the only time in American history where 'Cash~For~Keys' will be used to get the White House back without having the former 'president' walk out with the stove/toilets/doors etc.

Funny thing, the man most of you praise and worship, here on Patrick.net, has done NOTHING for you. Nothing for all the people who have waited patiently, saving their pennies to buy houses at reasonable prices. Instead, banks and industries have been bailed out. Everything that could be done to keep prices from falling further, has been done by your 'Messiah'. Everything. And, still, you support him.

I realize you envy the rich. That is understandable. You blame them for your own lack of success and business prowess. But, no rich person is trying to 'pick your pockets'. The rich are busy making more money and working to keep what they have.

We've already been through this once a little over 100 years ago when one man owned all the railroads, one man owned all the steel, one man owned all the oil, etc. and conditions were horrific for workers. What makes you think this can't happen again?

I've been busy working all my life. You'd like to steal more of my money. But you don't have the votes in congress to tax me any further.

Well Duh. Since folks like you are obviously getting all the steak and goodies now. That might give us a clue as to who is really in charge. I'm so happy for your found success I can only sit back a dream a dream of how good life could be. So save a little for me ok. I used to think that the "American dream" was just a group of people living in a delusional state of being. Staring a picture of someone on the wall like George Washington say yea we really scored this time. Don't get no better than this. Let go deposit all this new found wealth and live it up. I am proud to say I finally met a fucking realist.

A free market must be protected with proper regulation. The governments most important role is to create a legal and regulatory environment which fosters competition.

This is precisely the goal of raising taxes on the wealthy. Increased centralization of capital causes less competition for resources. Five people with $1 will compete for resources, one person with $5 will consume the resources he desires and save the rest.

As I said higher in this thread, the top 1% earns 17% of income. They cannot possibly consume 17%, so the residual is saved (and lent to the government with interest) Government spending (and borrowing) must remain high in order to maintain demand for this excess capital.

Compounding and capitalized interest eventually reduces the purchasing power of social wealth redistribution, forcing austerity. Revolution ensues.

Social wealth redistribution is neccesary to placate the masses, no matter how effective the propoganda. Eventually we get to the point where it is hopeless for all except the oligopoly.

Lets have some fun with humbers. Lets take more of the top 1% income instead of borrwing it. Instead of them getting 17% less 24% average federal taxes, (12.92% after taxes) lets take them back to what they took home in 1986, Ronnie Ray-gun's go-go 80s. They took home after taxes 7.55%. That would make an average tax rate of about 55%. An average tax rate of 55% is $729B in annual taxes, vs. their current tax base of $310B.

Hey, I just reduced the deficit $419B, all by reducing the top 1% share of total after tax income back to where it was when their messiah had 6 years of tax policy under his belt, and not reducing taxes on 99% of Americans.

Do you really think anyone would listen to Warren Buffett if he put all his billions towards interest on the national debt?

I am not suggesting anyone give the government all their money. I don't have a quote where Buffet compares the government to a charity. He believes the rich should pay a higher rate. These are not the same thing.

I am suggesting that someone who tries to infer that the government is a valid charity should give at least some of their discretionary charitable donations to government, or admit that the government is an awful charity.

"Each millionaire and billionaire, on average, would get $150,000...Here's what $150,000 means -- $150,000, this is what each millionaire and billionaire would get, on average. This could pay for a tax credit that would make a year of college more affordable for students like you. (Applause.) Plus a year's worth of financial aid for students like you. (Applause.) Plus a year's worth of prescription drug savings for one of your grandparents. (Applause.) Plus a new computer lab for this school. (Applause.) Plus a year of medical care for a veteran in your family who went to war and risked their lives fighting for this country. (Applause.) Plus a medical research grant for a chronic disease. (Applause.) Plus a year's salary for a firefighter or police officer -- $150,000 could pay for all of these things combined. Think about that."

Sounds nice, but it's propoganda. Not only is he blatantly buying votes, he is misleading the public to the point of lying.

That $150k will actually go to waste, interest on the debt which we already wasted, killing brown people around the world, creating extra barriers to competition so our power elite may stay there forever, etc...

The $150k could pay for those nice things, but it absolutely won't if it is given to the government.

I don't have a quote where Buffet compares the government to a charity.

I appreciate the attempt, but you don't have a quote where Stephen King or Obama calls the government a charity either.

I am not sure if it was an honest misinterpretation on your part or a deliberate distortion, but a common response given by Republicans in answer to more taxes is that some spending on some things (welfare, etc.) should not be compulsory and that charities can pickup when the government steps out. Stephen King's quotes are a response to that argument.